About half of college grads underemployed => disaster?

[WWGD]

No...

Correct! So you do agree that some businesses run thin margins, so some people must lose their jobs! So please: adjust your answers to include those job losses. The way you presented it before makes it look like you are choosing to ignore an uncomfortable downside of what you would like to see happen. But that downside doesn't go away just by ignoring it.

It may be true that if you make the cause small enough the effect will be hard to detect, but the effect is there. It has to be. Otherwise, you could create a perpetual motion machine with such policies (that is a common fallacy behind the PMMs we see presented on PF).

Up to this point, it has appeared to me that you have been denying that supply and demand was an "aspect" at all.

Of course this is not possible for all businesses, and even for those for which it is, this can be phased in and negotiated for both parties' interest.

And, yes, there is an effect from supply and demand, but this effect may be offset by other factors, like the ones I mentioned: increased productivity from grateful employees, increased productivity through better living standards. So, no, I am not denying the part that supply and demand plays. I am just arguing that it is one of many factors and that a weighted sum may be more accurate to describe the issue as a whole.

 

[russ_watters]

Unions have no interest in biting the hand that feeds them.

That is just so not true:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/265357/

Why would they willingly bankrupt the company that pays their salary?

It's a scorched-earth, big picture, who-will-blink-first negotiating technique(and heck, sometimes it is just an accident - a miscalculation). If you drive one company out of business you can use that as a demonstration of the threat your union poses to the next business you negotiate with. It happens so much that it appears to me to be their primary tactic! The companies, of course, use the same tactic.

Companies can be forgiven for caring more about their profits than their employees, but unions are supposed to represent their employees but often don't make decisions in their best interest.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course this is not possible for all businesses, and even for those for which it is, this can be phased in and negotiated for both parties' interest.

And, yes, there is an effect from supply and demand, but this effect may be offset by other factors, like the ones I mentioned: increased productivity from grateful employees, increased productivity through better living standards. So, no, I am not denying the part that supply and demand plays. I am just arguing that it is one of many factors and that a weighted sum may be more accurate to describe the issue as a whole.

I feel like you are still dancing around the point, and I am reluctant to move on until it is made clear:

I mean, the two (wage increase and employment level) are not intrinsically contradictory to each other.

You are retracting that, right? At least in the immediate, micro sense?

 

[WWGD]

I feel like you are still dancing around the point, and I am reluctant to move on until it is made clear:

You are retracting that, right? At least in the immediate, micro sense?

I mean that , _when taken alone_ , yes, there is a decrease in employment. But when considered as part of a larger picture, other factors may offset the effects of this factor alone. Are you disagreeing with this, or are you saying this, supply and demand alone, is the only factor to be considered, and EDIT not just one of the factors in a weighted sum of some sort.

 

[symbolipoint]

As WWGD and russ_watters continue to discuss supply & demand, and unions, let me refer to the list of major fields in Dr. Courtney's linked article and just show three of those fields:

• Project Management
• Studio Art
• Human Development & Family Studies

An undergraduate degree in any of those might help to make someone into a better person; but are they vocational skills/degrees? Are they professional degrees? If not, then maybe they as fields to study/learn in college, are not geared toward making someone employable in business, industry, or government.

 

[WWGD]

As WWGD and russ_watters continue to discuss supply & demand, and unions, let me refer to the list of major fields in Dr. Courtney's linked article and just show three of those fields:

• Project Management
• Studio Art
• Human Development & Family Studies

An undergraduate degree in any of those might help to make someone into a better person; but are they vocational skills/degrees? Are they professional degrees? If not, then maybe they as fields to study/learn in college, are not geared toward making someone employable in business, industry, or government.

This is overall a god idea, but it has a problem: the world/economy changes so fast nowadays that the need for certain occupations is very likely to change while students are in school. What do you do then?

 

[XZ923]

As WWGD and russ_watters continue to discuss supply & demand, and unions, let me refer to the list of major fields in Dr. Courtney's linked article and just show three of those fields:

• Project Management
• Studio Art
• Human Development & Family Studies

An undergraduate degree in any of those might help to make someone into a better person; but are they vocational skills/degrees? Are they professional degrees? If not, then maybe they as fields to study/learn in college, are not geared toward making someone employable in business, industry, or government.

First things first, that's an extremely subjective statement. Second, Project Management is a valuable skill in the contemporary workforce, especially as it becomes more and more interconnected.

However, if you want to discuss people spending money on social science degrees with no realistic career paths, I'm probably on your side. We've seen this happening as students graduate with these degrees and $100,000 of student debt, then complain they can't pay the debt because they thought they would get a six-figure job to tweet their opinions all day and (surprise!) it didn't happen because it turns out the world as a whole really doesn't care about your opinion.

 

[gleem]

I was listening to NPR with an interview of Simon Sinek a business consultant. He had an interesting angle on Millennials. They have been raised to expect relatively quick results (gratification) and think highly of themselves and their accomplishments (You can do/be anything you want) They expected that jobs would be waiting for them when they graduated and that they would discover their dream job. His point was that when they find a job and it is not what they expect after a very short interval of evaluation and look for another. They fail to realize that jobs like personal relationships take more effort than just finding them. They must be continually worked at and developed sort of like a new pair of shoes that need to be broken in. Their preconceived notions are not consistent with reality So how many of the un/underemployed graduates are always in transition having too high of expectations. or just plain discouraged not being able to find the perfect job. It may be that the problem is not that there are no jobs but there are not jobs that they want.

 

[XZ923]

It may be that the problem is not that there are no jobs but there are not jobs that they want.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. There is a severe disconnect between what sort of jobs are actually needed in the real world and the jobs that the universities claim are needed. It turns out the demand for philosophers is a lot lower than the demand for welders. So they may be very proud of their philosophy degree, but guess what, there are no jobs for it (other than teaching philosophy, of course) so most will never use this degree. Skilled labor, on the other hand, is in demand so the blue-collar guy who went to a trade school will often end up with a higher-paying job than someone who blew six figures on an Ivy league education that has no real-world application and now needs to figure out how to manage a debt that's closer to a mortgage than a car loan while working at McDonalds.

 

[WWGD]

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. There is a severe disconnect between what sort of jobs are actually needed in the real world and the jobs that the universities claim are needed. It turns out the demand for philosophers is a lot lower than the demand for welders. So they may be very proud of their philosophy degree, but guess what, there are no jobs for it (other than teaching philosophy, of course) so most will never use this degree. Skilled labor, on the other hand, is in demand so the blue-collar guy who went to a trade school will often end up with a higher-paying job than someone who blew six figures on an Ivy league education that has no real-world application and now needs to figure out how to manage a debt that's closer to a mortgage than a car loan while working at McDonalds.

True, but you seem to assume this state of affairs will remain constant throughout the worker's life. What if their skills become irrelevant, unneeded at some point?
For all its flaws a liberal arts degree gives you a general foundation , a big picture view and the flexibility to learn different things if/when needed.

 

[kyphysics]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lennials-who-live-at-home-don-t-work-or-study

Bloomberg had this article in April. It says a quarter of millennials live at home and don't work or study. Half of them are white and most are men.

A life of leisure, free of bosses and bills, sure sounds like the dream — and it turns out millions of millennials are living it. But don't congratulate them yet. They're doing it under their parents' roof and not necessarily by choice.

About a third of 18- to 34-year-olds in the U.S. live at home, the Census Bureau reported on Wednesday. That includes college dormitories. Among 25- to 34-year-olds living at home, one in four is neither enrolled in school nor working. That's 2.2 million people, a small percentage of the nation's more than 70 million millennials 1 but a striking figure nonetheless.

More 18- to-34-year-olds live with a parent than with a spouse, according to the report, The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1975–2016 (pdf). That's a major shift from the 1970s, when young people were more than twice as likely to live with a spouse. Young adults today are also likelier to be enrolled in college or graduate school than their counterparts in the '70s.

Most of those who live at home but neither work nor study have a high school diploma or less, and about a fifth have a child. Half are white, and the majority are male. About a quarter have a disability 2 .

Although, I'm not sure what's up with the dormitories thing. Why include that?

 

[russ_watters]

Rebooting:
The reason this thread grates on me so much is that it is predicated on accepting a double-failure (failure to teach/learn algebra in both high school and college) and then doubles (quadruples?) down on it by codifying the failure and then rewarding it as if it were a success. In my view, it is several steps in the wrong direction from what the American spirit is supposed to be:

0. "Failure is not an option." [from "Apollo 13"]
-1. Failure is an option. [failed to teach algebra 2 in high school]
-2. Failure is inevitable. [failed to teach algebra 2 in college]
-3. ...so don't even try. [remove it from the curriculum]
-4. ...but reward it as if it were a success anyway. [give the same degree as a reward for succeeding at something easier]

Each one is progressively worse than the last, on the skin-crawl index. The idea (from an educator!) that the purpose of education is not to educate, but to declare people educated whether they have become so or not, is utterly mind-blowing to me.

Meanwhile, our parents and kids in other countries succeed[ed] in learning algebra. So are we getting uniquely dumber? No, as my "American spirit" comment and the post above mine indicate, I think it is primarily an attitude problem: as a society, we've stopped believing and trying so thoroughly that we just reward failure instead.

I don't see a viable discussion starting point or direction for any of that. The idea that got pulled in later is better, but still narrowly focused on most of those initial bads. But it could be made better by broadening it and approaching it with an open mind, seeking to optimize what is taught in schools (which, I would assume, school administrators never stop doing). I would frame the problem with this question:

What could you have learned better in high school that would have mitigated a failure you experienced as an adult?

This question is premised on the idea that high school, by virtue of the standing it gets as government provided, is the minimum education a person should have in order to become a minimally functional adult. So how do we make better functional adults?

Well, my list, roughly in order by severity of failure:

1. Financial mistakes (math, and finance specific classes)
2. Health/lifestyle mistakes (science/health class)
3. Failure to understand the physical consequences of your actions (physics)
4. Failure to write/speak in proper English (English class)
5. Generic: failure to learn what is needed to succeed in college and in a job

Yes, they're mostly STEM. The reality is we live in a technical world and it requires technical skills to navigate. If any are unclear, please ask and I can expand. But the point is, I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities. This includes Algebra 2. Indeed, if I could make it happen, I'd say that Calculus 1 and Statistics are both essential for minimally functional adults to know.

#5 is probably too generic and isn't exactly classroom knowledge, but I suppose it could be. It's a problem we see particularly as a physics forum, where people being given bad advice and taught bad philosophy for approaching school/life. "Follow your dreams! study physics and become a physicsist!" This isn't generic advice that should be given to everyone: if a person doesn't have an aptitude for physics, don't tell them they should follow that dream. You're lying to them by implying it is readily achievable.

 

[WWGD]

I don't know if this has anything to see with Millenials' situation, but I cringed every time I hear a parent tell their child " You're Special". Nothing wrong with loving and supporting your child, but I don't think that is the best way of doing it.

 

[WWGD]

Rebooting:
The reason this thread grates on me so much is that it is predicated on accepting a double-failure (failure to teach/learn algebra in both high school and college) and then doubles (quadruples?) down on it by codifying the failure and then rewarding it as if it were a success. In my view, it is several steps in the wrong direction from what the American spirit is supposed to be:

0. "Failure is not an option." [from "Apollo 13"]
-1. Failure is an option. [failed to teach algebra 2 in high school]
-2. Failure is inevitable. [failed to teach algebra 2 in college]
-3. ...so don't even try. [remove it from the curriculum]
-4. ...but reward it as if it were a success anyway. [give the same degree as a reward for succeeding at something easier]

Each one is progressively worse than the last, on the skin-crawl index. The idea (from an educator!) that the purpose of education is not to educate, but to declare people educated whether they have become so or not, is utterly mind-blowing to me.

Meanwhile, our parents and kids in other countries succeed[ed] in learning algebra. So are we getting uniquely dumber? No, as my "American spirit" comment and the post above mine indicate, I think it is primarily an attitude problem: as a society, we've stopped believing and trying so thoroughly that we just reward failure instead.

I don't see a viable discussion starting point or direction for any of that. The idea that got pulled in later is better, but still narrowly focused on most of those initial bads. But it could be made better by broadening it and approaching it with an open mind, seeking to optimize what is taught in schools (which, I would assume, school administrators never stop doing). I would frame the problem with this question:

What could you have learned better in high school that would have mitigated a failure you experienced as an adult?

This question is premised on the idea that high school, by virtue of the standing it gets as government provided, is the minimum education a person should have in order to become a minimally functional adult. So how do we make better functional adults?

Well, my list, roughly in order by severity of failure:

1. Financial mistakes (math, and finance specific classes)
2. Health/lifestyle mistakes (science/health class)
3. Failure to understand the physical consequences of your actions (physics)
4. Failure to write/speak in proper English (English class)
5. Generic: failure to learn what is needed to succeed in college and in a job

Yes, they're mostly STEM. The reality is we live in a technical world and it requires technical skills to navigate. If any are unclear, please ask and I can expand. But the point is, I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities. This includes Algebra 2. Indeed, if I could make it happen, I'd say that Calculus 1 and Statistics are both essential for minimally functional adults to know.

#5 is probably too generic and isn't exactly classroom knowledge, but I suppose it could be. It's a problem we see particularly as a physics forum, where people being given bad advice and taught bad philosophy for approaching school/life. "Follow your dreams! study physics and become a physicsist!" This isn't generic advice that should be given to everyone: if a person doesn't have an aptitude for physics, don't tell them they should follow that dream. You're lying to them by implying it is readily achievable.

Sadly, it may be in part a consequence of success. As life becomes easier and you can slide by and have a reasonable life without much effort, it becomes harder to motivate people. Notice how 2nd-, 3rd- generation immigramnts slack off considerably compared with their first- second- generation relatives.

 

[rootone]

Or it could mean that 'college grad' doesn't really mean much now, although it did mean something not so long ago.
Would you even dare to put in your CV that you passed an exam at Trump University?

 

[jack action]

I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities. This includes Algebra 2. Indeed, if I could make it happen, I'd say that Calculus 1 and Statistics are both essential for minimally functional adults to know.

Not that I don't agree with the statement, but how are we suppose to do that? Trigonometry is already taught in high school - and I think it can be very useful in everyday life - but nobody uses it because, well, nobody knows what they can do with it. That is the biggest problem to solve first. Your parents don't use trigonometry - nobody around you does -, your teacher can't tell you what it can be useful for, so why would anyone want to learn it? As stupid as it sounds, people have to recognize the value of the things taught in school (other than the mere fact that you need a diploma to get a job) before sending their children to school.

I personally despise how most teachers present school as a chore that will be rewarded by some playtime, like phys ed & sports or arts & crafts. The only thing they teach is that school is boring and nobody «normal» should like it. I hated phys ed and liked learning new things in class, so you can imagine my confusion when I was «rewarded» by being stopped from doing what I liked to do something I hated.

Big surprise, people of my generation (X), which have been served phys ed as a reward all their youth, are now treating physical activities as an important part of their life. To a point where someone who can run a marathon makes a bigger accomplishment than someone who can solve complex mathematical equations. (Funny how people will raise funds for cancer research by training for and participating in a race, but no one will raise money by saying they will take a biology or chemistry course - which would be more related to the subject, i.e. research)

This isn't generic advice that should be given to everyone: if a person doesn't have an aptitude for physics, don't tell them they should follow that dream.

I have a problem with that. To me, this is an elitist statement that make it sounds like some people cannot do physics (often related to «not smart enough»). Maybe someone do not have an interest in it and doesn't want to do the effort. I don't have the patience to learn how to play a musical instrument, but it doesn't mean I can't, even though I certainly will never become a Mozart. But then again, I don't dream about becoming a musician either.

If you are a human being, then you can learn physics. Just like you can learn to hunt, to cook, to speak, to read and write. Some might be better than others in some domains, but you can still do it. There was a time when people thought that not everybody could read & write, yet everybody does today. That myth was the result of elitism; People protecting the power given by their skills, by preventing anyone else having them.

And it's a good thing to learn stuff you may not use as a livelihood too, because you need to know and understand what you buy as well, including making decisions (like voting).

 

[Dr Transport]

_The_ unions? Or _some_ unions? I just have trouble accepting that people would, by default, act in self-destructive ways. Why would union members knowingly kill off the source of their paychecks?

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

 

[gleem]

This thread is about an unacceptable employment rate following a college degree. While substandard preparation can be a contributor I think that attitude may be more important. As I previously said too high of expectations was identified for millennials whom we a presumably talking about since they are the majority of college grads today. Colleges over the past decade have become overindulgent to the whims of the students who have developed an intolerance to ideas they do not support. Colleges have created "safe zone" for student to sequester when they are "assaulted" by ideas they find "offensive". They have also, contrary to what colleges have traditionally tried to instill in its graduates, analyze and debate the issues, verbally assault those who they disagree .

This leads to a big problem in the real world where one does not have a "safe space" and in which irrational behaviors in response to an unacceptable work environment is not tolerated. It is a lot different than their previous experiences have revealed.

Their work ethic leaves something to be desired too. Anecdotally my two sons, one who worked in a light manufacturing company (an now owns his own business) and the other who works in construction both noted lack of unreliability of younger workers. Interestingly the one who works in construction is a millennial but with a solid work ethic. One final note the construction working son moved to a different state and a larger company had to prove he was not a typical millennial to the new crew. I seems that the work force might be testing these new grads making it just a little harder for them to deal with.

 

[russ_watters]

Not that I don't agree with the statement, but how are we suppose to do that? Trigonometry is already taught in high school - and I think it can be very useful in everyday life - but nobody uses it because, well, nobody knows what they can do with it. That is the biggest problem to solve first. Your parents don't use trigonometry - nobody around you does -, your teacher can't tell you what it can be useful for, so why would anyone want to learn it? As stupid as it sounds, people have to recognize the value of the things taught in school (other than the mere fact that you need a diploma to get a job) before sending their children to school.

I think there are two approaches to the problem and this narrow focus one (how, exactly, will we use it), while common, isn't the correct approach. For starters, I think it is mathematically flawed (irony intended). You might learn literally a million things in your schooling, most of which you rarely use. But since there is no way to know when or if the date of the Magna Carta might come in handy, you learn it. Going to elementary/secondary school is collecting a big basket of skills/knowledge, with potential usefulness, and it doesn't need to be proven that you used one for having learned it to be a good idea. Only the aggregate value for the population as a whole matters.

So part of the wrong approach to the thread comes from the fact that we are discussing high school knowledge being taught to college kids who won't become scientists/engineers. It's a flase dilema: it's high school knowledge, so you teach it to high school kids because you don't know yet which ones are going to become scientists/engineers.

Second, this approach discounts the fact that there is value in having learned the subject even if you don't use it at all. Learning is exercise and that weight at the gym isn't the rock in my back yard, but will help me lift that rock in my back yard. Learning things you won't use doesn't just make you know more, it makes you smarter.

 

[russ_watters]

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

I'm going to try again and say it more softly than I put it before: business is inherrently risky and *any* deal anyone ever makes has the potential to work-out badly. Even if only "some" unions purposely harm companies, all unions must be aware that what they are doing has the potential to harm companies. They are inherrently biting the hand that feeds them by making labor cost more.

 

[WWGD]

Look at the teachers union and the state govt employees union in Illinois, they have extracted large pay raises and huge retirement benefits from the state. Now the state is one step away from bankruptcy and has a junk bond status and is raising taxes to cover the shortfalls. Just a case where the union members killed off their paychecks...

Still, until further evidence, it falls under _some_ unions. I am not saying it does not happen, and I agree that greed and stupidity sometime override common sense and decency, but I am not sure this is the norm. I think if one considers sources both right- and left- one gets a more nuanced view of unions' behavior. EDIT: The Left and MSNBC will portray them as victims, Fox as responsible for all ills, and here the cliche holds, that the truth is in-between.

 

[jack action]

Going to elementary/secondary school is collecting a big basket of skills/knowledge, with potential usefulness, and it doesn't need to be proven that you used one for having learned it to be a good idea.

so you teach it to high school kids because you don't know yet which ones are going to become scientists/engineers.

Learning things you won't use doesn't just make you know more, it makes you smarter.

How do you merge these statements with this one:

I think we need more STEM in high school and less humanities.

Are you saying humanities courses have no potential usefulness?

What about the high school kids who will become librarians, artists or politicians? Shouldn't we teach the subjects needed for these fields (i.e. humanities) to every kids just because we don't know which ones will embrace those careers?

Are you saying learning humanities doesn't make you smarter? At least not as much as STEM courses?

 

[russ_watters]

How do you merge these statements with this one:

I'm not sure what discrepancy you see, so I'll just list them together to show they are not all or nothing or one and not the other...

Schools need to teach:
1. Useful skills.
2. How to think.

Are you saying humanities courses have no potential usefulness?

No, I'm saying they have less potential usefulness. That's a broad brush though and not all are the same.

Big caveat here that I don't think is an issue because of your chosen examples, but want to make sure: I said "humanities", but humanities are generally lumped together with the arts and the arts are by far the less useful. As V50 pointed out, there are some parts of humanities (philosophy, in particular), that are very valuable for learning how to think...not that they are necessarily taught that way though.

What about the high school kids who will become librarians, artists *snip*? Shouldn't we teach the subjects needed for these fields (i.e. humanities) to every kids just because we don't know which ones will embrace those careers?

I did mean it when I said with fully unintentional irony that this should be approached more mathematically. The number of jobs available for librarians and artists are vanishingly small, so the need to provide prep for them is as well...though I think library science is already included, so I don't think that's a good example. Art is a good example though. It's more of a non-academic talent-based hobby like sports or music and should not be required.

politics

Politics is a tough example because it doesn't have any formal requirements, but informally it typically involves a law degree, which is post-bachelor and therefore none of this discussion is really applicable. If that's too much of a cop-out, though; history: no, political science: yes.

Are you saying learning humanities doesn't make you smarter? At least not as much as STEM courses?

Yes. In particular I favor processing over memory and, for example, history class is almost all memory. English class is unfortunately taught as memory, but that can/should be fixed.

This is going to sound like a bit of a cop-out, but most of what I want to increase about one and decrease about the other can be done just by replacing electives with mandatory courses. For some people (like me), it wouldn't change much, but for others who take electives like art classes, it would make a big difference.

 

[olivermsun]

I did mean it when I said with fully unintentional irony that this should be approached more mathematically. The number of jobs available for librarians and artists are vanishingly small, so the need to provide prep for them is as well...though I think library science is already included, so I don't think that's a good example. Art is a good example though. It's more of a non-academic talent-based hobby like sports or music and should not be required.

Art takes a ton of rigorous understanding and practice, just like sports, music, or math. Similarly with the humanities. They may not fit into a narrow view of what "academic" work entails, but that's just an arbitrary definition.

Similarly in reply to an earlier post in this thread, about math being the workout room for the brain. Expository writing, historical analysis, oral argumentation, musical structure and interpretation, artistic perception and presentation ... all of these heavily exercise the brain.

 

[russ_watters]

Art takes a ton of rigorous understanding and practice, just like sports, music, or math.

Sports are not taught as an academic endeavor, so including it undermines your point. But for all three, I agree that they require practice, but disagree that they require "rigorous understanding" (and nobody earns a degree in football...er, well...except yeah). I don't know if anyone's ever studied the issue, but I rather doubt that success as an artist or musician correlates well with education in it. Contrast that with physics or math or engineering, where roughly 100% of people who have succeeded in those fields received education in those fields.

Or looking at it from the opposite direction: are artists today better than the Renaissance masters? Did the Renaissance masters go to art school? I'll put a finer point on it: the reason you have to learn math/science in an academic setting is that it builds. Newton invented calculus, but Einstein learned calculus in school and then invented Relativity. That's progression. It's "standing on the shoulders of giants". Art today is not vastly more advanced than during the Renaissance, requiring academic learning of all of that progress, because art doesn't progress much, if at all. It just is.

Similarly with the humanities. They may not fit into a narrow view of what "academic" work entails, but that's just an arbitrary definition.

Please make sure you have read my criteria (I didn't say humanities aren't academic) and if you disagree, provide an alternative. Just saying my definition is arbitrary without providing a definition of your own doesn't seem very convincing to me.

Similarly in reply to an earlier post in this thread, about math being the workout room for the brain. Expository writing, historical analysis, oral argumentation, musical structure and interpretation, artistic perception and presentation ... all of these heavily exercise the brain.

There is a reason math is being picked-on in this thread: it is hard. There is a reason many people pick humanities, art, etc. to study instead of STEM: they are easier. Nobody ever picks STEM over art/humanities because it is easier.

 

[olivermsun]

Sports are not taught as an academic endeavor, so including it undermines your point.

It doesn't undermine my point at all. Sports take training, effort, and mental development, even if it isn't the same mental development that you expect in a math class.

But for all three, I agree that they require practice, but disagree that they require "rigorous understanding" (and nobody earns a degree in football...er, well...except yeah).

The training system for football is different than for a mathematician, obviously. But sorry you are wrong if you think that a sport can be played at a high level without rigorous understanding.

I don't know if anyone's ever studied the issue, but I rather doubt that success as an artist or musician correlates well with education in it. Contrast that with physics or math or engineering, where roughly 100% of people who have succeeded in those fields received education in those fields.

To take one example, the amount of education and training in music it takes to be a professional classical musician would probably shock you.

Or looking at it from the opposite direction: are artists today better than the Renaissance masters? Did the Renaissance masters go to art school?

As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program. For his area, so did Mozart.

Please make sure you have read my criteria and if you disagree, provide an alternative. Just saying it is arbitrary without providing a definition doesn't seem very convincing to me.

And talking about the requirements to learn humanities, art, music, sports, seemingly without much relation to reality is not convincing to me either. The key point is that everything is hard to do well, so saying that it's easy for people do half-assed art or music or sports or humanities is not an argument. By the standard of professional artists or musicians or athletes, the vast majority of people, even in STEM fields, do math at a "hobby" level.

There is a reason math is being picked-on in this thread: it is hard. There is a reason many people pick humanities, art, etc. to study instead of STEM: they are easier. Nobody ever picks STEM over art/humanities because it is easier.

I did.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't undermine my point at all. Sports take training, effort, and mental development, even if it isn't the same mental development that you expect in a math class.

Then what is the reason sports aren't taught in school? And do you think they should be?

The training system for football is different than for a mathematician, obviously. But sorry you are wrong if you think that a sport can be played at a high level without rigorous understanding.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. *Some* athletes succeed despite lack of athletic gifts because they are "students of the game" - Peyton Manning and Tom Brady come to mind. Some succeed purely on athletic talent. Allen Iverson, for example. A great many athletes make the major leagues before becoming "students of the game" because they never had to bother with it until then. Sometimes they flame out because of it, sometimes they learn later and sometimes they never learn. Pitchers in baseball are notorious for this; young pitchers are often just flamethrowers. Older pitchers, who can't throw as hard, learn new pitches and tactics. But in any case, none of these guys have formal education in sports. It isn't done because it isn't necessary or valuable for them or for society at large.

To take one example, the amount of education and training in music to be a professional classical musician might shock you.

I was a pretty decent musician in high school and as a result have a whole bunch of professional musician friends, some of which were music majors in college and some not. The amount of formal education required to be a professional musician (er: except to be a teacher of it)? Zero. Many do it because why not, but none actually need to.

As far as the education system for artists went, yes, they did.

Can you provide an example? I just looked up Michelangelo and Da Vinci and see both were paid apprentices at 14.

Talking about the requirements to learn humanities, art, music, sports, seemingly without much experience in it yourself is not convincing to me at all.

You don't know my experience(or knowledge beyond experience), but if there is a particular aspect you are unclear on or think is thin based on my descriptions, please just ask. Otherwise this is just an "is not/is too" argument, which is pretty pointless...or worse, instead of arguing against logic with logic, you are trying ad hominem based on assumptions about me that you don't really know. In any case, since you mis-stated my argument, I think you should reread it.

I did.

You chose STEM in part because it was easier than non-STEM? May I ask what, specifically? You're the first person who I ever heard say that. [edit] And the path of the schooling illustrates the discrepancy in difficulty/depth. For example, anyone with any bacherlors degree can get an MBA if they feel like it, but you can't get a masters in engineering or physics after getting a BA in business. Even for a law degree; anyone can get one because the liberal arts prerequisite knowledge is so low that even someone who didn't major in liberal arts has plenty.

 

[olivermsun]

Then what is the reason sports aren't taught in school? And do you think they should be?

Huh? They do teach sports in PE class. However, the breadth of coverage necessarily precludes any really "deep" training in a given sport.

I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. *Some* athletes succeed despite lack of athletic gifts because they are "students of the game" - Peyton Manning and Tom Brady come to mind. Some succeed purely on athletic talent. Allen Iverson, for example. A great many athletes make the major leagues before becoming "students of the game" because they never had to bother with it until then. Sometimes they flame out because of it, sometimes they learn later and sometimes they never learn. Pitchers in baseball are notorious for this; young pitchers are often just flamethrowers. Older pitchers, who can't throw as hard, learn new pitches and tactics. But in any case, none of these guys have formal education in sports. It isn't done because it isn't necessary or valuable for them or for society at large.

You don't think pitchers know exactly how the physics of a thrown ball work? I'm not talking about writing down equations, but actually how you need to throw a ball to get the job done.

I was a pretty decent musician in high school and as a result have a whole bunch of professional musician friends, some of which were music majors in college and some not. The amount of formal education required to be a professional musician (er: except to be a teacher of it)? Zero. Many do it because why not, but none actually need to.

Mastering the technical aspects beginning with scales, chords, specific patterns, the broad base of knowledge to understand various musical idioms and genres, performance familiarity with the literature (e.g, a "repertoire"): all that takes a ton of formal education, along with a ton of personal effort. I'm not sure I see the essential difference between that and the usual mathematics/physics program.

=Can you provide an example? I just looked up Michelangelo and Da Vinci and see both were paid apprentices at 14.

"As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program."

When you get a Ph.D. in math or physics, at a certain level you stop taking classes and end up "apprenticing" yourself in some fashion.

You don't know my experience(or knowledge beyond experience), but if there is a particular aspect you are unclear on or think is thin based on my descriptions, please just ask. Otherwise this is just an "is not/is too" argument, which is pretty pointless...or worse, instead of arguing against logic with logic, you are trying ad hominem based on assumptions about me that you don't really know. In any case, since you mis-stated my argument, I think you should reread it.

If you said things about how mathematics "works" that didn't jibe with my experience, I would call it out equally. I am not basing what I say on ad hominem or assumptions about what your experience is; I am only responding directly to what you have said. I apologize if it comes across as ad hominem, because that isn't deserved in any way. I am just calling it the way I see it. I don't have the "right" answer.

You chose STEM in part because it was easier than non-STEM? May I ask what, specifically? You're the first person who I ever heard say that.

Music performance major and mathematics major.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh?

Sure. I don't think I'm being unclear, but these short answers of yours don't reflect that you're understanding or putting much effort into this. I'm not sure I can continue discussing it with you.

You don't think pitchers know exactly how the physics of a thrown ball work? I'm not talking about writing down equations, but actually how you need to throw a ball to get the job done.

Some do, some don't, none of them learn it in school. Most telling is that is extremely common for pitchers to learn new pitches after entering the major leagues because they never had to bother learning them at the lower levels.

Mastering the technical aspects beginning with scales, chords, specific patterns, the broad base of knowledge to understand various musical idioms and genres, performance familiarity with the literature (e.g, a "repertoire"): all that takes a ton of formal education, along with a ton of personal effort.

Certainly. And none of that is necessary to be a professional musician.

"As far as the education system for artists went, Michelangelo certainly went through the program."

It's like getting a Ph.D. in math or physics, at a certain level you end up "apprenticing" yourself in some fashion.

Being an apprentice at 14 is like being drafted into minor league professional baseball at 14 and entering the majors shortly thereafter. It skips all formal education. If you are instead arguing that Michelangelo went through all they had because that's all there was, that's pretty much my point: they don't have an equivalent amount to STEM because it wasn't necessary then and hasn't become necessary today.

Music performance major vs. mathematics major.

I'm not quite following: are you saying you were a music performance major at one time and switched to math because it was easier? You're not confusing effort/difficulty with talent, are you? No amount of effort will overcome a lack of talent in music, but that isn't the same as music or the liberal arts being "difficult". Learning scales is not difficult, but improvising requires talent, which needs practice but can't be learned. That was my weakness as a musician; I had good technical skills, but no musical talent. Or in the basketball context: you can't teach tall.

 

[olivermsun]

Sure. I don't think I'm being unclear, but these short answers of yours don't reflect that you're understanding or putting much effort into this. I'm not sure I can continue discussing it with you.

I don't know what to tell you. I've put a lot of effort into this line of thought over my lifetime. My understanding is admittedly limited to my experiences, but it is what it is. On what basis are you questioning my level of understanding or effort, and why does that preclude further discussion with me?

I'm not quite following: are you saying you were a music performance major at one time and switched to math because it was easier? You're not confusing effort/difficulty with talent, are you? No amount of effort will overcome a lack of talent in music, but that isn't the same as music or the liberal arts being "difficult".

Again, I don't know what to tell you. I was a music performance major at the top school in my field. I was also a STEM major in the top school in my field. There was a lot to be learned in both areas. Both are difficult and require tremendous education to pursue at the highest levels.

Sure, I may have been more "talented," whatever that means, in one area than the other. I am just telling you what I have concluded from actual experience. There does seem to be a kind of circularity in your argument, if you are defining "talent" to encapsulate everything that is difficult for some people, but not others, to master.

 

[XZ923]

Here's the issue with STEM vs. performing arts, humanities, liberal arts, etc. The basic reason you get an education is to acquire a skill set, preferably a skill set people will pay for, even more preferably a skill set that is in as low a supply as possible. Unlike most people on here, I'm not a physicist, engineer, or have any fancy Master's degree or anything of that sort. I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.

Now, small engine mechanics are not exactly in terribly short supply, but if necessary I can still look up the classifieds and usually find job listings. Even if people aren't hiring for my profession directly, being able to tune an engine or wire a circuit can be translated into other semi-skilled positions. So the $22,000 I paid has in turn given me some level of skill that other people will pay me to apply. In many of the "social sciences", "humanities", whatever label you'd like to apply to [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. degrees, the only real skill that's being taught is the ability to parrot back your professor's opinions. That may get you an A in your course, but no one's going to pay you to do it in the real world. The only thing you can do with a philosophy degree is teach philosophy, so if you have one professor teach 1000 students before retiring and needing a replacement you'll end up with 999 worthless degrees.

So you graduate summa cum laude with a degree in sitting around and thinking, and it turns out no one cares. So you inevitably end up working for minimum wage complaining you can't repay your six-figure student debt. Our elected officials take up your battle cry and call for your student loan debt to be forgiven. Of course, that's not how economics actually work; you've already spent federal money so really what's being asked is for people like me to subsidize degrees in opinion forming. I don't need to pay anyone to give me their opinion on social issues; I'm quite capable of doing that myself. I need to pay a doctor to care for me when I'm ill, a lawyer to represent me on legal issues, etc. The problem in these fields is students are being taught that when they graduate someone WILL pay them six figures to sit around and tweet their opinions, and that lie is creating the massive student debt problem we keep hearing about.

Before you get a degree, ask "what is the practical application of the education I'm purchasing?" If you can't answer that question, don't do it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here's the issue with STEM vs. performing arts, humanities, liberal arts, etc. The basic reason you get an education is to acquire a skill set, preferably a skill set people will pay for, even more preferably a skill set that is in as low a supply as possible. Unlike most people on here, I'm not a physicist, engineer, or have any fancy Master's degree or anything of that sort. I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.

Now, small engine mechanics are not exactly in terribly short supply, but if necessary I can still look up the classifieds and usually find job listings. Even if people aren't hiring for my profession directly, being able to tune an engine or wire a circuit can be translated into other semi-skilled positions. So the $22,000 I paid has in turn given me some level of skill that other people will pay me to apply. In many of the "social sciences", "humanities", whatever label you'd like to apply to [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. degrees, the only real skill that's being taught is the ability to parrot back your professor's opinions. That may get you an A in your course, but no one's going to pay you to do it in the real world. The only thing you can do with a philosophy degree is teach philosophy, so if you have one professor teach 1000 students before retiring and needing a replacement you'll end up with 999 worthless degrees.

So you graduate summa cum laude with a degree in sitting around and thinking, and it turns out no one cares. So you inevitably end up working for minimum wage complaining you can't repay your six-figure student debt. Our elected officials take up your battle cry and call for your student loan debt to be forgiven. Of course, that's not how economics actually work; you've already spent federal money so really what's being asked is for people like me to subsidize degrees in opinion forming. I don't need to pay anyone to give me their opinion on social issues; I'm quite capable of doing that myself. I need to pay a doctor to care for me when I'm ill, a lawyer to represent me on legal issues, etc. The problem in these fields is students are being taught that when they graduate someone WILL pay them six figures to sit around and tweet their opinions, and that lie is creating the massive student debt problem we keep hearing about.

Before you get a degree, ask "what is the practical application of the education I'm purchasing?" If you can't answer that question, don't do it.

@XZ923, the problem with your argument above is that for the humanities, social sciences, and even certain STEM fields, the skills that students gain is not just parroting back the professor's opinions -- there are indirect skills that such students gain (the ability to analyze complex information, ability to communicate effectively complex ideas, etc.). Those indirect skills can (and often are) just as much in demand in the working world as the more specific "technical" skills that you, as a motorcycle mechanic, would possess.

The key here is that students need to make the case that they possesses these skills, and need to augment their core curriculum with other sets of skills/knowledge that will be useful. So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice. Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

 

[jack action]

@russ_watters :

I must say that I can't follow you on this concept that science is somehow a different way of using your mind, that it requires a different learning curve or that even no one can have «talent» for it.

This kind of thinking is related to elitism that promotes the idea that some domains require special people.

The «natural» way of learning is by copying what you see in your surroundings. That is how we learn how to speak and walk. We speak the language of the people surrounding us with no formal training. If there are 2 or 3 different languages in our environment as kids, we learn all of them without any difficulty. That is true for any human being, no special talents required.

But, if you try to learn a new language that is not used around you, it becomes a lot harder, even with formal training. Although, some are better than others, some even seem to have a «talent» for it.

The reality is that it all comes down to motivation. The less motivated you are about something, the harder it is to learn it.

This article explains how children can easily learn to read by themselves. Heck, the article even mentioned that some children learn to write before they read! (On a side note, you might find interesting how writing is linked to arts, since letters are essentially drawings.)

I believe that sciences are seen by most people as «difficult» because nobody do science stuff in society. I hear music everywhere, it's easy to find an uncle that will play something on his guitar at a family reunion and it is socially praised to know how to play an instrument. You never see people resolving a set of equations in a social gathering. That is why music seems to be «easier» to a lot of people: They're surrounded by it and that's a huge source of motivation to learn it, even by yourself.

I agree with you that people are missing on something without knowing more about sciences. I have great difficulties finding people I can talk with about science. (Why do you think I'm on PF?) My greatest obstacle is the fact that people think it's «hard». And when I hear people like you saying that somehow these subjects are different than others, you are not helping our cause. It is the kind of thinking that leads to math phobia for many of us. (As I'm proof reading this, I just saw @XZ923 's post where he mentions «I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.» The perfect example of someone putting himself down for no good reasons.)

I strongly believe that if we encourage people to use science in everyday life, science would come a lot easier to most people. The fact that we give already chewed up equations to «ordinary» people (if not the answer directly) because we fear they won't understand them is wrong in my opinion. I also despise how we never use proper terminology with chemical products (like bleach, borax or lime), which makes it very difficult to learn chemistry the proper way. We prefer assuming that people won't understand or, if they would be fluent in chemistry, they will necessarily do bad things with this knowledge, like explosives or drugs. But I think we are also missing out on so much by voluntarily keeping people «chemically illiterates».

 

[XZ923]

@XZ923, the problem with your argument above is that for the humanities, social sciences, and even certain STEM fields, the skills that students gain is not just parroting back the professor's opinions -- there are indirect skills that such students gain (the ability to analyze complex information, ability to communicate effectively complex ideas, etc.). Those indirect skills can (and often are) just as much in demand in the working world as the more specific "technical" skills that you, as a motorcycle mechanic, would possess.

The key here is that students need to make the case that they possesses these skills, and need to augment their core curriculum with other sets of skills/knowledge that will be useful. So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice. Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

First of all, we'll have to agree to disagree on parroting. My personal opinion is that in these types of courses, that is exactly what's being asked of students. Obviously this is an extremely broad statement and thus is not technically correct for every case, but as a general rule that appears to be the direction our higher-education institutions are going and I think the fact that this thread exists at all is proof of that.

As to this point:

So your advice of "only pursue an education if there is a practical application" is bad advice.Because the reason for an education is not just to acquire a skill set, but to acquire a broad range of knowledge/skill sets.

I flat-out disagree with this. This is the type of wishy-washy nonsense that's resulted in all these kids with useless degrees. This may have been true in the past, but nowadays you can take free courses online in virtually any general education field. I know because I take online courses myself. I even tried a couple of the [insert demographic] studies, philosophy, social justice, sociology etc. courses just to see what they're about. Spoiler alert: they're politically-driven nonsense, and that's in the most low-profile of settings. I can only imagine the indoctrination hell contemporary college students are undergoing. The idea that by the time you're an adult you need to spend 4 years of your life and $100,000 of other peoples' money (if the subsidized loan movement gets to its ultimate goal) simply to be able to think is a dangerous policy, economically and socially. No one's going to pay you for your opinion in the real world, and the lie that people will do so is what's creating this mess that we all know will end in a government, i.e. taxpayer-funded bailout, not to mention probably a whole new government sector under the DoE.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything negative about people simply choosing to take these programs. Your money, your choice. My objection is with the call for taxpayer dollars to subsidize them. If you want to spend 4 years of your life analyzing Plato's Allegory of the Cave, your choice, but don't hold other people responsible when no one hires you to do it for a living. Make your decision and live with your decision.

 

[XZ923]

As I'm proof reading this, I just saw @XZ923 's post where he mentions «I'm just a humble motorcycle mechanic who reads physics textbooks for fun and because it's valuable for me to know as much of it as I can cram into my ill-equipped brain.» The perfect example of someone putting himself down for no good reasons.)

I'm not "putting myself down for no good reason". I'm simply being honest about much of advanced physics being far beyond my current knowledge level, hence why I read more basic-level physics books instead of quantum mechanics. I've found that a little humility goes a long way in life.

EDIT:

Just wanted to add, if the college students in question had a little more humility and a little less narcissism, they might realize they have no right to force other people to pay for their tweets and tumblr likes.